Appeal No. 2006-0562
Application No. 09/952,588
but only that the claims on appeal "read on" something disclosed in the reference (see
Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir.
1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984)).
We must point out, however, that anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is
established only when a single prior art reference discloses, either expressly or under
the principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention. See RCA
Corp. V. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385,
388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
With respect to independent claim 55, the examiner maintains that Nakayama,
Dickson and Notani teach all of the limitations as recited in independent claim 55.
Appellants argue that these references do not teach the limitation that “the first and
second bond wires are positioned on the first input lead to control the magnitude of high
frequency current delivered to the first and second input bond pads, wherein an
equivalent magnitude of current is supplied to the first and second input bond pads.”
(Brief at page 7-11 and 14-15.) The examiner maintains at pages 10-15 and 17-19 of
the answer that these references teach the claimed “first and second bond wires are
positioned on the first input lead to control the magnitude of high frequency current
delivered to the first and second input bond pads, wherein an equivalent magnitude of
current is supplied to the first and second input bond pads.” We agree with the
examiner and find that appellants’ argument concerning that the references do not
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007